In Dawod v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2026] UKUT 360 (AAC), handed down on September 29, 2026, the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal regarding universal credit entitlement. The case, heard by a rare three-judge panel, centers on whether the Department for Work and Pensions conducted a mandatory reconsideration when altering housing cost decisions, carrying substantial implications for social security claimants and tribunal procedures.
The Bottom Line
- The Ruling: A three-judge panel of the Upper Tribunal ruled that the DWP’s consideration of whether to supersede a universal credit decision can constitute a mandatory reconsideration under social security law.
- The Impact: The judgment removes a major procedural barrier for claimants seeking to correct retrospective errors in their awards, such as missing housing cost provisions.
- The Precedent: The decision establishes that the substantive reality of what occurred matters more than the DWP’s characterization of its own decision-making process.
Background of the Dawod Universal Credit Dispute
The legal challenge originated from a 2022 universal credit award issued to Mr Dawod, which omitted any provision for his housing costs. When he subsequently attempted to have the omission corrected, the Department for Work and Pensions refused to update the award retrospectively. That refusal left Mr Dawod facing several months of rent arrears. When he sought to challenge the omission, the DWP argued that the original decision could not be altered because no formal “mandatory reconsideration” of that specific decision had taken place. Instead, the department maintained it had only considered whether to “supersede” the original determination.
Mr Dawod’s attempts to appeal the matter to the First-tier Tribunal met with repeated dismissals. As noted in the Upper Tribunal’s judgment, the First-tier Tribunal “had three goes at getting this appeal right” and “got it wrong three times.” With assistance from the Child Poverty Action Group, Tom Royston of Garden Court North Chambers—instructed by Will Ford of Osbornes Law Solicitors—took the case forward to the Upper Tribunal. Due to the legal complexity and the importance of the point at issue, the Upper Tribunal exceptionally convened as a three-judge panel.
Tribunal Findings on Mandatory Reconsideration
During the proceedings before the three-judge panel, the DWP persisted in arguing that a tribunal lacked the legal authority to change the original decision because the department had not yet independently considered revising it. In taking this stance, the DWP acknowledged it had effectively failed to discharge a statutory function for more than three and a half years. The Upper Tribunal firmly rejected this position, allowing Mr Dawod’s appeal and awarding the housing costs that he and his wife, Ms Alla, should have received back in 2022.
The tribunal’s ruling clarifies that the mandatory reconsideration process requires only an evaluation of whether to revise an existing decision, rather than demanding an explicit outcome either to revise or not to revise. The judgment highlights that whether a mandatory reconsideration has occurred is fundamentally a question of fact for the tribunal to determine based on the substance of what actually happened. The DWP’s internal labeling or characterization of its decision-making steps is unlikely to be decisive.
Future Implications for Social Security Claimants
The decision in Dawod v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions addresses what the tribunal identified as “many” cases where the DWP has historically blocked appeals from proceeding on the grounds that a mandatory reconsideration had not been formally conducted. Under the new ruling, the absence of a distinct revision decision does not prevent a finding that the department considered whether to revise. Furthermore, the statutory obligation to weigh a revision prior to issuing a supersession means that any application resulting in a supersession inherently involves considering a revision.
The Upper Tribunal also clarified that it is immaterial whether grounds existed to extend the time limit for enabling a late revision. Moving forward, social security claimants facing retrospective corrections—such as omitted housing costs discovered long after an initial award—will find it significantly simpler to have their appeals admitted and evaluated on their merits. Additional details on the case can be found via the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber or through social security organizations such as Z2K.
| Case Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| Case Citation | [2026] UKUT 360 (AAC) |
| Date of Decision | 29 September 2026 |
| Tribunal Composition | Three-judge panel |
| Legal Representation | Tom Royston (Garden Court North) instructed by Will Ford (Osbornes Law) |
The practical effect of the ruling is that future appeals concerning historical award errors should encounter fewer administrative roadblocks regarding mandatory reconsideration prerequisites. Communications regarding the judgment are managed by Alex Blair, Communications Manager at Garden Court North Chambers.
